Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider
registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.

General Admission and Apology
OK, I have slept on it, LemmyC is right. I need to step back. I spoke too readily against non-revisionist scholarship as a whole on the basis of an inadequate survey and second-hand knowledge/opinion. That was not appropriate.

My experience was that higher education offers researchers masters degrees, which are general surveys, and doctorates, where you look closely at a small area. So I had assumed that perhaps the doctoral students had accepted the general holocaust narrative too readily and simply embellished it with detail. Even if there is some truth in this, the amount of detail accumulated must by now have weight on its own. The background for me is that there was a period, from Chomsky's Holocaust mini-series in the 1970s to around the 1990s when Goldhagen's book was heavily promoted, when holocaust studies was used to promote negative views of western culture. Hence, it was inevitable that its claims would be looked at more critically by people from outside that field. You can't expect people to make decisions about the values they live by without looking at all the evidence.

Siegmund Rothstein

Originally Posted by LemmyCaution

@ EtienneSC, will you be replying to the questions and concerns which Leo Major and I raised about Rudolf's use of Siegmund Rothstein, or do you prefer to let that lie?

It does not surprise me that there would be several people of the same name born in the same place. I have come across this myself with old birth/death records. Rudolf offers a weak argument for how the supposed same Rothstein would have had to travel from Treblinka to Minsk. It seems to be wishful thinking rather than a lie. I have nothing to add myself.

Reinecke

Originally Posted by LemmyCaution

I need to remind you that YR Büchler's work on Taübner put all the revisionist speculation and wittering about that case to shame, in this very thread.

The point was that I had sought and not found a copy of the original 1943 judgment by Reinecke and only found a court copy from 1959. The smoking gun would something Reinecke published or signed. I did identify that the original SS records are held in Berlin and asked if anyone had written on them in general, as opposed to this single document. No reply as yet.

Hilberg

Originally Posted by LemmyCaution

Can you show that Browning's book, or any of the two others you're familiar with, is structured like this? (i.e. asking "how" instead of first asking "whether")

Faurisson showed this in the case of Hilberg when he had him cross-questioned here by Douglas Christie.

Quote:

Christie indicated that he wanted a simple answer to his question so that he as a simple person might understand it. I asked you if your method was to find out how it happened, said Christie, not why it happened. Do you agree?

"That's correct," said Hilberg.

I asked you if you ever made an effort to determine if 6 million really died and your answer was you made an initial determination of what happened on the basis of a cursory examination of the available data. Right?, asked Christie.

"That, in order to decide for myself, and myself only, whether to invest my time, and as it turns out my life, in this project...Who would want to spend a lifetime in the study of something that did not happen?, " said Hilberg. He confirmed that he "made an initial determination" that 6 million died: "It would be called a presumption. That is rather rebuttable. It could be destroyed. It could be abandoned upon the finding of contrary evidence." (4-769)

Page reference to Goldhagen's Hitler's Willing Executioners (1996) is pages 249-50. Goldhagen cites a book by Hoffmann, not Browning, as I wrongly assumed.

I cannot find anything related to your post on pp 249-250 of the 1997 paperback edition of Goldhagen’s book (I don’t have the 1996 edition); however, on pp 380-381 we can read Goldenhagen’s discussion of Ohlendorf’s testimony about superior orders, which is in line with recent scholarship about the possibility of members of the Einsatzgruppen opting out.

However, I think you’ve confused apples with oranges - or Pollack has. Because Goldhagen wasn’t exactly clear. Goldhagen quotes Ohlendorf’s 1947 NMT testimony about men he deemed unable or unsuitable for the killing duty on account of their mental state - not about men refusing duty, which was the situation you say Pollack addressed ("Ohlendorf admitted to ordering those who refused to take part in liquidations shot”). Evading orders, by request or refusal, would be apples to the oranges of Ohlendorf’s reference to men deemed unsuitable for the killing duty and excused by the command.

I had sufficient occasion to see how many men of my Gruppe did not agree with this order in their inner opinion. Thus, I forbade the participation in these executions on the part of some of these men and I sent some back to Germany.

Goldhagen also cites the testimony of one of the members of Einsatzgruppe D to the effect that the men in the unit knew that those “unfit for the performance of such tasks” would be “released.” Goldhagen’s point here is that men could find a way out of duty and Ohlendorf’s testimony on unfitness is just one of the examples he gives.

- cases of unfitness for duty (“I excluded some whom I did not consider emotionally suitable for executing these tasks and I sent some of them home”), and
- cases of attempts to evade or opt out of the duty (“the result would have been a court martial with a corresponding sentence”)

Despite Ohlendorf’s testimony on this, scholars agree that the search for any such cases (death penalty for refusal to participate in the killing operations) has proven fruitless. In its judgment, in fact, the NMT already stated (NMT, Green Series, vol IV, p 482) that

Quote:

Ohlendorf himself 'could have got out of his execution assignment by refusing cooperation with the army. He testified that the Chief of Staff in the field said to him that if he, Ohlendorf, did not co* operate, he would ask for his dismissal in Berlin.

I don’t have Pollack’s book, so I don’t know what he wrote. Nor do I get your point: if it is that different writers like Pollack and Goldhagen will interpret testimony and events differently, meh; if it is that Ohlendorf may have made some untrue and/or some contradictory statements, meh. I mean, in 1946 Ohlendorf was trying to prove his value to the allies, whilst in 1947 the man’s life hung in the balance.

As an aside, during his NMT examination Ohlendorf further testified (p 249), in line with the superior orders defense many of the defendants in the NMT trial tried using, as follows ( ):

Quote:

The men of my group who are under indictment here were under my military command. If they had not executed the orders which they were given, they would have been ordered by me to execute them. If they had refused to execute the orders they would have had to be 'called to account for it by me. There could be no doubt about it. Whoever refused anything in the front lines would have met immediate death. If the refusal would have come about in any other way, a court martial of the Higher SS and Police Leader would have brought about the same con* sequences. The jurisdiction of courts martial was great, but the sentences of the SS were gruesome. The orders for the execu* tion in the past given in Pretzsch went to all Einsatzgruppen commanders or Einsatzkommando leaders who went along during the beginning of the Russian campaign. They were never revoked. Thus they were valid for the entire Russian campaign as long as there were Einsatzgruppen. Thus it was, therefore, unneces* sary at any time to give another order of initiative and I did not give any individual order to kill people.

Perhaps Pollack was referring to this passage. I don’t know - and I still don’t know what point you tried making.

__________________. . . all this would be absurd if it weren't happening, now let's go and eat.
- Jose Saramago, The Stone Raft

Faurisson showed this in the case of Hilberg when he had him cross-questioned here by Douglas Christie.

This does not support your contention. Here, Hilberg says that he did preliminary research to "scope" the topic he wanted to study and carry out an "initial determination." Moving through a topic with tentative ideas about it is hardly unusual and hardly evidence of what you claimed, namely that historians proceed like this:

Quote:

Holocaust narratives are more like: "These people were so bad you wouldn't believe it and deserved what they got. Don't be like them! This is the best documented genocide ever." "OK, about these footnotes, where are the documents?" "The Germans destroyed them. That's how cunning they were." "That's not what you said at first...(turns to Germar Rudolf)"

In fact, Hilberg's three volumes, as I've written a number of times, are based squarely on the German documents your claim says that Holocaust narratives are not based on.

But worse for your contention, the IHR article itself disproves your claim when it says,

Quote:

He [Hilberg] confirmed that he 'made an initial determination' that 6 million died: 'It would be called a presumption. That is rather rebuttable. It could be destroyed. It could be abandoned upon the finding of contrary evidence."

So even your IHR piece acknowledges, at least in this verbiage, that Hilberg was open to his initial determination being rebutted.

In fact, again contrary to your implication, Hilberg did not end up concluding that 6 million Jews died in the Holocaust, his initial determination, but rather, after further study and evaluation of the archives, he concluded that about 5.1 million Jews had perished.

This is a huge own goal for you. The only example you could come up with says the opposite to what you claimed.

__________________. . . all this would be absurd if it weren't happening, now let's go and eat.
- Jose Saramago, The Stone Raft

That assumes that revisionists have not discussed these reports. They have.

No, it doesn't assume that at all. It simply informs you that there is voluminous documentary evidence where you keep acting like there's almost none. Also, Fleming goes well beyond what Evans has written on the reports from Poland and their reception in Britain.

__________________. . . all this would be absurd if it weren't happening, now let's go and eat.
- Jose Saramago, The Stone Raft

It does not surprise me that there would be several people of the same name born in the same place. I have come across this myself with old birth/death records. Rudolf offers a weak argument for how the supposed same Rothstein would have had to travel from Treblinka to Minsk. It seems to be wishful thinking rather than a lie. I have nothing to add myself.

A correction, in the interest of accuracy. Rudolf's "weak argument" - and it is worse than weak, it is false - isn't on account of multiple individuals with the same name. Rather, as I posted above,

Originally Posted by LemmyCaution

... there are 4 records at YV for Siegmund (Zigmund) Rothstein from Kitzingen (Mainfranken), born there in 1867. It would be beyond strange indeed if there were 4 people with that name born in 1867 in the same place. (One of Siegmund's nephews was named Siegfried Rothstein and was deported from Mainfranken but to Izbica, probably perishing in Bełzec or Sobibór, not to Theresienstadt or Minsk.)

Rudolf dishonestly linked the 4 records with conflicting information for this man, Siegmund (Zigmund) Rothstein, to create a false itinerary in service of his dishonest "thesis" about resettlement. He knew what he was doing, and he did it to falsify the history. You may not call that a lie; but it is a lie.

__________________. . . all this would be absurd if it weren't happening, now let's go and eat.
- Jose Saramago, The Stone Raft

That assumes that revisionists have not discussed these reports. They have.

No, it doesn't assume that at all. It simply informs you that there is voluminous documentary evidence where you keep acting like there's almost none. Also, Fleming goes well beyond what Evans has written on the reports from Poland and their reception in Britain.

[/quote]

Both the authors of EtienneSC's nonsense missed the point of Cavendish's statements, much like EtienneSC himself did months ago. As he had been told before, Cavendish cast doubt on the claim that Poles were being systematically put to death in gas chambers. He is quoted as saying such in the spam, and much more besides.

Quote:

I do not believe that there is any evidence which would be
accepted in a Law Court that Polish children have been killed on the
spot by Germans when their parents were being deported to work in
9 Roger Allen to Victor Cavendish-Bentinck, 27th August 1943, FO 371/34551
Page 5 of 18
Germany, nor that Polish children have been sold to German settlers.
As regards putting Poles to death in gas chambers, I do not believe
that there is any evidence that this has been done. There have been
many stories to this effect, and we have played them up in PWE
rumours without believing that they had any foundation. At any rate
there is far less evidence than exists for the mass murder of Polish
officers by the Russians at Katyn. On the other hand we do know that
the Germans are out to destroy Jews of any age unless they are fit for
manual labour.

The Spam And Cavendish's statements and actions really don't lend credence to the claim that the British "Fabricated" the evidence for the Holocaust. It actually shows the opposite

Quote:

The words “where they are now being systematically put to death in gas
chambers” were removed from the statement before it was published
simultaneously in London and Washington.1

Far from fabricating "atrocity stories" as the authors claim, it now seems as if the Allied Governments avoided using "atrocity stories" because of the Antisemitism within their own intelligence agencies. The spam wastes a lot of time talking about and trying to prove an imaginary "hoax", but instead, what it actually does is disprove the "hoax" by showing how intelligence agencies doubted the reports coming from occupied Europe and acted on these doubts by editing their propaganda accordingly. Fail.

Ivanesca, your patience exceeds mine great detail - I will add that Fleming's argument is very much in line with what you say about the doubt and suppression of reports coming from Poland, for a variety of reasons within the British government - but the reports remain sources to be dealt with and explained . . .

__________________. . . all this would be absurd if it weren't happening, now let's go and eat.
- Jose Saramago, The Stone Raft

It does not surprise me that there would be several people of the same name born in the same place. I have come across this myself with old birth/death records. . . .

To make this clearer to you than I did before, I searched for population data for Kitzingen, where Rothstein was born. The Jewish population of Kitzingen in 1880 was 337. Yet you imagine, to help Rudolf wriggle out of his lie, that he made an honest mistake, leavened with wishful thinking, that 4 males with the same name were born there in 1867. Seriously?

__________________. . . all this would be absurd if it weren't happening, now let's go and eat.
- Jose Saramago, The Stone Raft

Moreon EtienneSC's painful ignorance and assumptions vis a vis British wartime intelligence on the Holocaust.

Dr. Jonathan Harrison of Holocaust Controversies was kind enough to share the interrogation protocol of one Robert Barth, an SS officer captured by the British in 1943.

Quote:

Barth described the formation of the Einsatzgruppen in May 1941 and their tasks—fighting partisans and Communism and carrying out general intelligence duties. He admitted that commissars and leading Communists were arrested and shot but misleadingly claimed that the Order Police (“Schupos”) and Waffen-SS did the shooting. (They did, but the Einsatzgruppen did even more.) Barth revealed that Jews were almost invariably shot and in later stages gassed. He then discussed the 1943 activities of Einsatzgruppe E [sic] in Serbia and Croatia [see note 60].

The sequence and emphasis of Barth's testimony is noteworthy. He describes and moreover defends or justifies the Einsatzgruppen's policies by saying that their main task was "fighting partisans, communists, and carrying out intelligence duties". He acknowledges that they killed and gassed Jews, but his recollection almost downplays these atrocities by describing them as an afterthought. Such self justifying testimony hardly corresponds to what EtienneSC calls "fabrication" or "propaganda", or telling EtienneSC's fantasy British forgers "what they wanted to hear". Based on his statements, particularly the self justifications, it sounded more like Barth was telling his interrogators what he knew, and he was trying to defend the Einsatzgruppen by downplaying their atrocities against Jews and instead showing how useful they were against communists. This was a man putting his own spin on events that actually happened, and neither "coached" nor "fabricates" in the interests of "Propaganda". The British "hoax" never happened. The authors of EtienneSC's spam are liars, just like the one who shared the spam in the first place.

Moreon EtienneSC's painful ignorance and assumptions vis a vis British wartime intelligence on the Holocaust.

Dr. Jonathan Harrison of Holocaust Controversies was kind enough to share the interrogation protocol of one Robert Barth, an SS officer captured by the British in 1943.

The sequence and emphasis of Barth's testimony is noteworthy. He describes and moreover defends or justifies the Einsatzgruppen's policies by saying that their main task was "fighting partisans, communists, and carrying out intelligence duties". He acknowledges that they killed and gassed Jews, but his recollection almost downplays these atrocities by describing them as an afterthought. Such self justifying testimony hardly corresponds to what EtienneSC calls "fabrication" or "propaganda", or telling EtienneSC's fantasy British forgers "what they wanted to hear". Based on his statements, particularly the self justifications, it sounded more like Barth was telling his interrogators what he knew, and he was trying to defend the Einsatzgruppen by downplaying their atrocities against Jews and instead showing how useful they were against communists. This was a man putting his own spin on events that actually happened, and neither "coached" nor "fabricates" in the interests of "Propaganda". The British "hoax" never happened. The authors of EtienneSC's spam are liars, just like the one who shared the spam in the first place.

I recant this post, as my interpretation of Barth's testimony was incorrect. The Black Rabbit of Inle (a self admitted ex denier) pointed out to me that Barth was a known anti-nazi.

That said, Barth's statement and his questioning at British hands still.don't support the notion of a "British Hoax". The Black Rabbit shared some of the directives/guidelines followed by the British interrogators. These guidelines did not contain any directive to ask about Gas vans, and the interrogators actually mentioned that Barth volunteered his information before any such questions were asked, or questionnaires provided. The information in the interrogation summary shows us exactly what the British needed and expected from such interrogations: Military intelligence. Thus, the interrogation summary emphasizes the limited intelligence contacts the Einsatzgruppen had with the Abwehr.

fotos.fotoflexer.com/794d2e7bec1ce6cb537335673eada11e.jpg

ETA: Barth was a self admitted Anti Nazi who willingly surrendered and, the actual interrogation transcripts may indicate that he had a lot to say about gassings and other atrocities. But, it's worth noting that the summary prepared by the British instead focuses on the bits of Barth's statements relating to military intelligence, while relegating his statements about the killings of the Jews to an afterthought. The significance of this was not that Barth downplayed the Einsatzgruppen's atrocities and played up their counter-insurgency functions, as I previously thought. It was that the British Did Not Care about such atrocities and were more interested in military intelligence. No "coaxing", "fabrication" or "fishing".

Close, but no cigar. The British did not need to "prod" or "coax" anyone into providing information about atrocities against Jews. Their interrogation practices make it clear that was not their aim or agenda. No British "hoax"

I'm glad that this thread is quiet. Holocaust denial is a truly sick topic that brings out the very worst in people. (In this case it is the deniers.) The amount of sheer hateful ugliness is breath taking.

The other thing it brings out is sophistical arguments and idiotic nit-picking from the deniers. That are frankly exhausting to refute. And what is impressively bad is how deniers over and over again get people on the defensive in terms of having to falsify their idiotic points. It is reverse the onus stuff. Sorry but the onus is on the deniers and people should not let them get away with reversing the onus.

Before this thread became quiet again we were treated from a person using the just asking questions gambit to a variation of the argument from incredulity. In this case it was that given his understanding of "Human Nature" that the descriptions of the behavior of Germans didn't ring true to "Human Nature". Actually this person struck me has being disingenuous and / or naïve. Any reading of history will show that humans are capable of truly bestial behavior towards their fellow man. May I suggest has a start Bartolome de Las Casas's A Short History on the Destruction of the Indies.

I'm glad that this thread is quiet. Holocaust denial is a truly sick topic that brings out the very worst in people. (In this case it is the deniers.) The amount of sheer hateful ugliness is breath taking.

The other thing it brings out is sophistical arguments and idiotic nit-picking from the deniers. That are frankly exhausting to refute. And what is impressively bad is how deniers over and over again get people on the defensive in terms of having to falsify their idiotic points. It is reverse the onus stuff. Sorry but the onus is on the deniers and people should not let them get away with reversing the onus.

Before this thread became quiet again we were treated from a person using the just asking questions gambit to a variation of the argument from incredulity. In this case it was that given his understanding of "Human Nature" that the descriptions of the behavior of Germans didn't ring true to "Human Nature". Actually this person struck me has being disingenuous and / or naïve. Any reading of history will show that humans are capable of truly bestial behavior towards their fellow man. May I suggest has a start Bartolome de Las Casas's A Short History on the Destruction of the Indies.

Disingenuous indeed. That same person repeatedly ignored or dismissed the actual literature on the subject of perpetrator motivation. What's even more disingenuous is that he had been told about this years ago, and yet he waited for things to die down before repeating the same debunked "arguments" all over again.

The book The First Holocaust, Jewish Fund Raising Campaigns with Holocaust Claims During and After World War One by Don Heddeshemimer is documented with reprints of articles from the New York Times and other Jewish press that claimed that there The First Holocaustwas a holocaust of the Jews during World War One. For example, see the article by Martin Glynn, the former Mayor of New York, describing a holocaust of six million Jews published in 1919 at http://codoh.com/library/document/871 Heddesheimer missed the systematic and murderous extermination of six million Jews in 1906, as reported in the New York Times, see http://exposing-the-holocaust-hoax-

Saggy, what was going on in Russia in 1919? Bonus question, what was going on in Russia in 1906?

Hey, Saggy. You don't know me but I saw some of your "work" at Skeptics.

In any case, the video is deceiving. The fact is that half of all Jewish deaths happened outside of "death camps" and only about 1/6 of the Jewish deaths occurred at Auschwitz-Birkenau. The deaths that occurred in the actual death camps add up to anywhere from 2.5-3 million, about 1.4 million died at the hands of the Einsatzgruppen, Order Police, SS Cavalry or their proxies with the rest dying as a result of malnourishment, disease, maltreatment, etc.

The Nazis kept meticulous records in the camps, including death certificates for every prisoner that died, and 'Death Books' summarizing the deaths. The Soviets captured the Auschwitz records but hid them for 45 years. A stone plaque was placed at Auschwitz stone plaque 4 millionthe Auschwitz entrance stating that 4 million had died there.

Does anyone see "Jews" listed anywhere on the plaque? Just askin'.
Also, the Soviets failed to mention Jews at all in relation to Auschwitz at the IMT.

LOL
The records are hardly complete...and don't list those that went straight to the gas chamber. Those Jews were never registered.
This is fun, we don't get this stuff at Skeptics anymore.

Quote:

Auschwitz stone plaque 1.5 millionat Auschwitz than Jews. The old stone plaque stating that four million had died was replaced by the plaque shown to the left claiming that one and a half million had died. The new number was not documented; based on the documents the figure should be on the order of (some months are missing) one hundred thousand.

Remarkably, (or not), the six million total for Jewish victims of the holocaust was not affected.

Again, the plaque never said Jews. The Soviets exaggerated the number of dead but never specifically linked Jews with that number. Other scholars like Hilberg and Reitlinger questioned that number.

According to the standard narrative Anne Frank arrived in Belsen in late 1944 and died there of tyhpus in 1945 a few weeks before the camp was liberated by the British. But, that has changed a bit recently from one made up date to another ...http://www.cnn.com/2015/04/01/europe...date-of-death/
So, we can correctly infer that there is no actual evidence that she died at Belsen at all.

And there is evidence that she did not die at Belsen. When the British liberated the camp the cameras were rolling and they made a documentary from the footage. Not surprisingly the documentary was shelved for 50 years but it can now be seen here ...http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/fi...-of-the-camps/

The reason the documentary was shelved is that they wanted to use some of the footage as evidence of the holohoax, but the vid was taken after the war and showed prisoners that had died of tyhpus as the vid documents, not gassed Jews, so they presented the footage in newsreels as being Jews gassed by the Nazis, and hid the documentary.

There is a little more to the story - At Belsen, the camp where Anne Frank ended up, there was a special barracks for Jewish children that was overseen by luba Tryszynska, a Polish Jewess who took it upon herself to see to the well being of the Jewish children in the camp after losing her own child. She appears in the back row of the photo above. She was assisted and the barracks was known as the Kinderbarracks. It housed up to 100 children, with around fifty being Jewish Dutch children from Amsterdam. After the war Luba, the Jewish children under her care at Belsen were transported to Amsterdam, the children became known as the 'Diamond children' as their parents were largely in the diamond trade. And article by one of the non-Dutch children in the Kinderbarac indicates that the Luba for unknown reasons, took special attention to the care of the Dutch children.

A book was written about Luba, 'Angel of Belsen', and it lists all the diamond children, so, if the girl in the photo is not Anne Frank it is very likely she is one of the children listed in the book. The diamond children have remained in touch and in 1995 they had a reunion in LA with Luba.

So, if the girl in the photo is not Anne Frank it should be easy to determine who she is. I emailed the Anne Frank center in Amsterdam, and they replied that they knew nothing of the Belsen photo and could not identify the girl. Also, to my knowledge, none of the diamond children have commented on Anne Frank at all.

Hey, Saggy. You don't know me but I saw some of your "work" at Skeptics.

In any case, the video is deceiving. The fact is that half of all Jewish deaths happened outside of "death camps" and only about 1/6 of the Jewish deaths occurred at Auschwitz-Birkenau. The deaths that occurred in the actual death camps add up to anywhere from 2.5-3 million, about 1.4 million died at the hands of the Einsatzgruppen, Order Police, SS Cavalry or their proxies with the rest dying as a result of malnourishment, disease, maltreatment, etc.

The video documents in complete detail that the photos and film footage of holohoax victims shown to the world over for the last 70 years was taken after the war by British and American troops, and shows prisoners that had died due to typhus epidemics in several camps in the last weeks of the war, mostly at Belsen. This is the big lie that the holohoax is based on. The vid also documents that the Nazis did everything in their power to combat the epidemic at Belsen by showing translated copies of correspondence from the camp commandant.

The Nordhausen vid shows that the camp was bombed in the last week of the war. It includes an interview with a Jewish doctor who survived the bombing. There are no photos of gassing victims because there were no gas chambers, it was all a 100% preposterous hoax without a shred of evidence, besides the endless lies, of course.

by Coby Lubliner, Jewish kid at Belsen but not a 'diamond child' from Amsterdam

So, I take that as prima facie evidence that she survived. If it's not Anne Frank, I think we are owed an explanation, that is, who is the girl in the photo. Instead we get complete silence from the Anne Frank Center and Luba T. and the diamond children.

The video documents in complete detail that the photos and film footage of holohoax victims shown to the world over for the last 70 years was taken after the war by British and American troops, and shows prisoners that had died due to typhus epidemics in several camps in the last weeks of the war, mostly at Belsen. This is the big lie that the holohoax is based on. The vid also documents that the Nazis did everything in their power to combat the epidemic at Belsen by showing translated copies of correspondence from the camp commandant.

Um, no.

The videos themselves show what happened after the SS persisted in stuffing the camps full of sick and dying people, long after there was any point in doing so.

The destruction of Europe's Jews is based upon documents collected, witnesses, perpetrators and survivors interviewed, site investigations and the various trials that happened after the war. Like any historical event it has gone through revision, not the "revision" that deniers pimp out to the gullible but actual revision by historians, researchers and investigators.

Quote:

The Nordhausen vid shows that the camp was bombed in the last week of the war. It includes an interview with a Jewish doctor who survived the bombing. There are no photos of gassing victims because there were no gas chambers, it was all a 100% preposterous hoax without a shred of evidence, besides the endless lies, of course.

So, all this from one camp? Wow, where do you get your history from? YouTube?

I wonder why Belsen needed an "angel". I wonder what made this angel different from the other staff at Belsen.

Saggy seems to think that descriptions of this "angel" are pretty reliable so I would think the would take that same author's description of activity at the rest of the camp as fairly reliable. So how about it, Saggy? This angel stood out because she was different from the others. In what way was she different?

__________________I am 100% confident all psychics and mediums are frauds.
----------------------------------------------Proud woo denier
----------------------------------------------
“That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.” -Christopher Hitchens-

Saggy, what was going on in Russia in 1919? Bonus question, what was going on in Russia in 1906?

As Mentioned upthread, Even Germar Rudolf has disowned this tired old rubbish.

Originally Posted by Germar Rudolf

[Heddesheimer's book] deals with Jewish fundraising campaigns during and after the FIRST World War, and therefore if only for chronological reason does not deal with the Jewish Holocaust of the SECOND World War.

We have a photo of a girl that looks, to me, exactly like Anne Frank, ... So, I take that as prima facie evidence that she survived. If it's not Anne Frank, I think we are owed an explanation, that is, who is the girl in the photo. Instead we get complete silence from the Anne Frank Center and Luba T. and the diamond children.

You aren't owed anything. That alone is absurd.

But as for people looking like other people, that is common as hell. Definitely not conclusive evidence of anything. That girl in the photo looks very much like my ex-boyfriend's sister.

The link is from the Holocaust Historiography website. The photo is also published on the USHMM site, but they appear to move the links around on that site rendering old links pointing to the wrong pics, so I'm using the HH site photo.

Location: Where there's never a road broader than the back of your hand.

Posts: 1,704

Originally Posted by Saggy

Instead we get complete silence from the Anne Frank Center

Originally Posted by Saggy

So, if the girl in the photo is not Anne Frank it should be easy to determine who she is. I emailed the Anne Frank center in Amsterdam, and they replied that they knew nothing of the Belsen photo and could not identify the girl.

Location: Where there's never a road broader than the back of your hand.

Posts: 1,704

Originally Posted by Saggy

According to the standard narrative Anne Frank arrived in Belsen in late 1944 and died there of tyhpus in 1945 a few weeks before the camp was liberated by the British. But, that has changed a bit recently from one made up date to another ...http://www.cnn.com/2015/04/01/europe...date-of-death/
So, we can correctly infer that there is no actual evidence that she died at Belsen at all.

Yet your link states quite categorically that she did die.
Can you provide evidence that the research used to fix this latest date is wrong?
Can you explain how, according to your link, Anne Frank looked like a skeleton in her last few weeks, and therefore nothing like the girl in your picture?
Can you walk us through the logic whereby you go from a corrected date of death to no death at all?
Finally, if Anne Frank had not been Jewish, and had not been imprisoned by the Nazis, would you still be posting allegations of fraud? Have you investigated anything similar in other countries such as China or Russia, that do not involve Jews?

Completely unthinkable that two children in a concentration camp for people of one particular ethnic heritage look slightly similar!
This devious 13 year old must have cut off all ties with her family, assumed a false name and disappeared from the face of the Earth, just so her father could use her diary to slander those nice nazis a tiny bit more than he could have done if his family had not been killed but only deported, imprisoned and starved.
It's clear who the real victims are here...

According to the standard narrative Anne Frank arrived in Belsen in late 1944 and died there of tyhpus in 1945 a few weeks before the camp was liberated by the British. But, that has changed a bit recently from one made up date to another ...http://www.cnn.com/2015/04/01/europe...date-of-death/
So, we can correctly infer that there is no actual evidence that she died at Belsen at all.

And there is evidence that she did not die at Belsen. When the British liberated the camp the cameras were rolling and they made a documentary from the footage. Not surprisingly the documentary was shelved for 50 years but it can now be seen here ...http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/fi...-of-the-camps/

The reason the documentary was shelved is that they wanted to use some of the footage as evidence of the holohoax, but the vid was taken after the war and showed prisoners that had died of tyhpus as the vid documents, not gassed Jews, so they presented the footage in newsreels as being Jews gassed by the Nazis, and hid the documentary.

There is a little more to the story - At Belsen, the camp where Anne Frank ended up, there was a special barracks for Jewish children that was overseen by luba Tryszynska, a Polish Jewess who took it upon herself to see to the well being of the Jewish children in the camp after losing her own child. She appears in the back row of the photo above. She was assisted and the barracks was known as the Kinderbarracks. It housed up to 100 children, with around fifty being Jewish Dutch children from Amsterdam. After the war Luba, the Jewish children under her care at Belsen were transported to Amsterdam, the children became known as the 'Diamond children' as their parents were largely in the diamond trade. And article by one of the non-Dutch children in the Kinderbarac indicates that the Luba for unknown reasons, took special attention to the care of the Dutch children.

A book was written about Luba, 'Angel of Belsen', and it lists all the diamond children, so, if the girl in the photo is not Anne Frank it is very likely she is one of the children listed in the book. The diamond children have remained in touch and in 1995 they had a reunion in LA with Luba.

So, if the girl in the photo is not Anne Frank it should be easy to determine who she is. I emailed the Anne Frank center in Amsterdam, and they replied that they knew nothing of the Belsen photo and could not identify the girl. Also, to my knowledge, none of the diamond children have commented on Anne Frank at all.

And?
Look, even if Anne Frank survived and her diary is a hoax (which is completely ridiculous), what difference does it make?
History is not built on diaries of kids.